On 20 Nov 2012, at 16:35, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

> And what is it? That I see both Washington and Moscow. No, you would not go that far (and that would contradict what you have already agree on).

Bruno Marchal certainly sees Washington AND Bruno Marchal certainly sees Moscow, but nothing at all is known about what "I" sees because Bruno Marchal can not or will not say who or what "I"

No, you are wrong. After pushing the button, and having self-localized themselves, both the W-man and the M-man know perfectly well who they are, and the H-man, as he assumes comp, know that in advance.

You attempt to hide the indeterminacy into an identity problem will not work because the 1/3 distinction, which you always seem to forget, does manage the disambiguation very well.

is without inserting even more ambiguity and pronouns. And John Clark does not believe that "I" is used just because its shorter and sounds smoother than saying "Bruno Marchal"; John Clark believes that when it comes to selling bad ideas to the unsophisticated, ambiguity is your friend.



> ?


> ?


> You push on a button, and, as a comp is assumed, you know that when you will open your eyes WHOEVER you will be by the comp assumption, you will see only only once city, and you are asked to evaluate which one.

That's 7 yous in just 43 words, over 16%.

> If "W" and "M" represent the two possible subjective outcomes, you, in Helsinki, know in advance that [...]

... in the future "you in Helsinki" will be experiencing nothing at all because nobody will be experiencing Helsinki anymore after that button is pushed; however for the you in Washington and the you in Moscow it's a different matter entirely.

The protocol given makes this clear. There are no future you in Helsinki, as the body in Helsinki is destroyed.

>> tell me who "you" is from the point of view of the reader of the thought experiment without using more ambiguous pronouns to explain that ambiguous pronoun.

> From the point of view of the reader, you can be attached to all the bodies involved. So you are the Helsinki man in Helsinki, and then you are the W-man AND the M-man, as with comp we can attribute consciousness and "Clark's identity" to both copies.

Exactly, "you" can mean anything

Precisely: you are all the copies, in the 3-views on the 1-view. But you are only one person, in all situation, from the 1-view on the 1- view. It is necessarily like that with comp, and it fits with the interview on each individuals before and after the pushing.

or everything or nothing at all,

Then you would not necessarily survived through a brain digital replacement, and comp is violated.

thus when Bruno Marchal asks the question "what will "you" feel when this or that happens?" it has no answer,

Of course it has an answer. You know that you will survive in one city. You just don't know which one. This is clearly confirmed by the copies.

or rather any answer is equally good (or bad), which makes the entire thought experiment utterly useless. The purpose of the exercise is to get a clearer understanding of the nature of identity,

Specifically NOT.

yet that damn pronoun is thrown around with abandon from the very start as if it's already perfectly understood, and if it is then there is no need for the thought experiment in the first place.

Only because you fail to see the difference between the subjective view (1p), and the locally objective view (3p).

Bruno Marchal knows these problems as well as John Clark does, and yet Bruno Marchal continues to use pronouns at every opportunity and John Clark believes that the only reason Bruno Marchal does this is because ambiguous words offer a good hiding place from logic. Nobody can prove something wrong if it's not known what was said.

> That is the intellectual 3p view on the 1-views.

John Clark is just waiting for a non-ambiguous answer to the question "who is "you?"

It is 100% irrelevant. I can make you amnesic of your identity, then, if you hypocampus still work, you will get the same indeterminacy on the 1p experience when doing the WM-duplication.

It is amazing because I have never seen people having a problem with step 3, except those scientist who believe that the whole consciousness or mind-body issue is bs at the start, or strict dogmatic (and old) copenhagians who fear even just the shadow of Everett.

Tell me if you agree with this. suppose that in the WM-duplication you are told that you will have a cup of coffee after the reconstitution is made, in W and in M. Do you agree that you can be sure that "you" will live a drinking coffee experience with certainty? Do you agree that P(drinking coffee) = 1?

If yes, I will proceed from that.

and John Clark is getting impatient at Bruno Marchal when Bruno Marchal just pees on the question because the point of view requested is obviously the point of view of the reader of the thought experiment.

It is assumed that the reader has the cognitive ability to put himself at the place of the copies, given that the question bears on the future 1-view. (technically that is what Löbian machine can already do enough to get the point).

If no answer to the question comes to mind that's OK, just re- express the thing without using pronouns and to hell if it sound choppy, this is supposed to be about philosophy not literary elegance.

No need of this, as the 1-you and 3-you are well defined in a 3p sense.

But very easy to do if you insist. A person is in Helsinki and will be WM-duplicated. "W" represents "the first person experience of seeing W + memory of having been in H" and "M" represents "the first person experience of seeing M + memory of having been in H". By comp such experience will occur, and no first person experience of seeing simultaneously W and M will ever occur . How can the person evaluate P(W) and P(M)?

> the question is about what you will feel, and in that case, it is pretty obvious that WHOEVER you can be after pushing on the button, in all circumstances, you will feel to be in only one city, and you have to evaluate the chance that it is W, OR M.

As John Clark said before, Bruno Marchal simply can not talk about this without using pronouns because ambiguous words offer a good hiding place from logic.

Then read AUDA which shows how to handle those pronouns. But you would be the only non logician who would find that easier than UDA.

> It is the use of "1" and "3" which prevents any ambiguity to make the reasoning invalid.

Just dump the damn pronouns!

Once you take the 1/3 distinction into account the pronouns are not ambiguous at.

You = the H-man, before the pushing.

3-you = the W-man and the M-man, after duplication.

1-you = the W-man only, from the W-man 1p view, or/and the M-man only from the M-man 1p view. It is a "or" from the 1p view on the 1p views, and an "and" if we ask for the 3p view on the 1-views.

The question concerns a prediction of future 1p experience, from the 1p-view, in a case of 3p-self-duplication.

I have still no clue at all why you are still stuck on this not so hard step.
You fail to make clear what is unclear for you.



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to